Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is not correct. Government lawyers are not working to destroy any relationship between the native peoples and the churches.

It is true that thousands of native people have brought legal actions against both the government and some church organizations at the same time. That is why on behalf of the government I have opened a new dialogue with church organizations to see if we can find some common ground to resolve this matter together with the victims in a way that is fair, quicker and cheaper than relying solely on the litigation process.

Mr. Speaker, the new Bush nominee for the commerce department on international trade said yesterday that U.S. anti-dumping and countervail measures were being used for protectionist purposes rather than for ending unfair trade practices.

With this kind of support, why is the Prime Minister dividing Canadian interests by assuring the Atlantic lumber industry yesterday that “we will negotiate?”

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased with the strong support we are getting in Washington. I have noticed with the new Bush administration some interest and some opening to revisit some of the American trade laws. This is very good news. It is great news in our bilateral relationship and it is very good news in our multilateral negotiations as well.

We will fight for Canadian industry from coast to coast, all industries in all provinces. We will stand for the right of our Canadian producers to export to the United States. We are very confident that we will win against the unfair U.S. allegations on subsidies.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the pro-free trade converts in the Liberal government who discovered their free trade in lumber position in 2001, the American consumers for affordable homes has been lobbying the U.S. administration consistently for the last two years to promote a full return to free trade.

This consumer group represents 95% of U.S. domestic lumber consumption. With this kind of support why is the Prime Minister displaying weakness by saying we will negotiate?

Mr. Speaker, the government has been working very closely through our embassy in Washington with the coalition of consumers in the United States. We have been working with it and helping it to get a strong voice in Washington. We have been providing it with all the appropriate information to be able to take more room in Washington.

The government has been instrumental in developing a strong voice in favour of Canadian softwood lumber in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, what is at issue here are the Prime Minister's repeated statements that there was no business relationship between the auberge and the golf club. A ten-year lease signed in 1988, however, indicates quite the opposite.

If the Prime Minister is convinced that this legal document, which clearly contradicts his statement, was no longer valid at the time of the events in question, why is he refusing to give us proof to that effect?

Mr. Speaker, I have another release from the Surrey RCMP. Another elderly man was beaten severely in his own home.

Over two years ago I asked the justice committee to address the issue of home invasions and I was called silly by a Liberal member of the committee. The minister now will undoubtedly talk about Bill C-15, an omnibus bill, in which home invasions is mired. It is not even on the legislative radar screen.

How much longer will Canadians have to wait for some effective legislation on home invasions?

Mr. Speaker, it is mired in an omnibus bill. On another issue, some members of the immigrant community in my constituency paid me a visit a few weeks ago.

Their complaint was that recently introduced legislation does not go far enough. It only removes charitable status from organizations that fund terrorism. It does not stop the actual funding of terrorism.

My constituents want a law that actually makes the funding of terrorism illegal. Will the government commit to such a law in the near future?

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the government has gone on record repeatedly condemning terrorism and the kinds of things that take place as a result of it.

We will bring in the tools necessary to ensure that we have the kind of capability to make sure that this precisely does not happen. It is a strength of the government, ensuring that it puts to rest those kinds of activities in the proper way.

Mr. Speaker, the government increased the budget by $435 million in the year 2000. In fact we are doing a great deal more in development.

The economy is growing much faster and that is why there is a difference in numbers. We are doing more. In the Speech from the Throne, as all members know, there was a major commitment to increase ODA yet again for Canada. I am very hopeful that will happen.